On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 08:32:40AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > I couldn't work out what set of commits I needed to revert to get a > clean revert, so I just reverted the commits and hacked out the > revert failures to what looked ok. Feel free to send me a clean set > of reverts, and I'll replace these patches with them... :) Will do. I will queue the reverts in my external tree & ask Linus to pull them into v4.3 so we don't ship with deadlocks. > > Also, if I understood your previous mails correctly you were targeting the > > first two revert patches for v4.3 so we get back to v4.2 level locking, and > > the rest of the series will target v4.4, correct? How does this work? Do the > > patches need to be split into two series and tested separately? > > Test it and push the reverts however you like. I don't care how the > reverts get to 4.3 - I'll be carrying them locally in my trees from > now and so my development and testing is now unaffected by the bugs > that are in the 4.3 code. If you aren't going to push them for 4.3 > then I'd suggest that they go to linus along with the rest of the > XFS changes in this series. > > FWIW, I'm quite happy to host all the pending DAX changes in a > public git tree and ask for it to be included in linux-next. It's > probably a good idea to do this because it makes it much easier to > co-ordinate merges when we are touching multiple subsystems (ext4, > xfs, dax, mm, etc). And it will help prevent the "patches molder on > the list until Andrew hoovers them up" problem and so prevent this > situation from happening in the future... No objections from me. :) I agree that it would be nice to have a central home for all the DAX patches. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
